LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




DDDD17433S1 



v^ ..i:^'. 



vV • 










4^ » «5ScOaW* "5% 







V ..j:^'* 



r*' . 



''^vr.c,^ 



^^^^^ ." 







.- * 



°o 







*0 • * * » 







4 ^^ 






OM 














^ * • * 







;» . ^'^'^ 



IVo. 6. 



THE BIBLE 

GIVES NO SANCTIOi\ TO SLAVERY. 



BY A TENNESSEAN, 



Honest men, and even those that are Christians, are liable 
to interpret the Sacred Scriptures by modern customs and 
practices, and consequently, are prone to form erroneous 
opinions in respect to the teachings of the Sacred Oracles. 
When persons, brought up in a slaveholding country, in 
which men, women and children are bought and sold 
as slaves, read in the Old Testament of the Hebrews 
buying servants, they are very liable to receive the im- 
pression that Slavery existed and was sanctioned under 
the old dispensation. Hence, commentators generally, 
and most of readers have believed, that SLavery did 
exist by the laws of Moses, and therefore did have the 
Divine sanction. Not a few profess to believe that God 
did give his people, under the old dispensation, the privi- 
lege of holding slaves, and that he has not abolished ifc 
under the new, and that the relation of master and 
slave is a Scriptural relation, and, of course, not in itself 
wrong. Such belief, and the teaclungs under it, have 
brought great reproach upon the Christian system, and 
have arrayed the natural humanity of many against the 
Bible, and driven them into hopeless infidelity. It is, 
therefore, highly important to defend the Scripture from 



2 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

surh intcrpi-etation, and from the consequent charge of 
mvino- sanction to sLaveholdinir. 

Before proceeding to interpret the Scriptures in rehation 
to Shavery, it is proper to state some just rules of inter- 
pretation which should be adopted by all interpreters. 

First. The Scriptures being inspired, their several parts 
can involve no contradiction. All the laws given and 
sentiments presented must entirely harmonize. A true 
interpretation will exhibit harmony, a false one will pre- 
sent discord and contradiction. 

Second. Obscure and doubtful passages are to be so in- 
terpreted as to accord with what we do know the Scriptures 
teach. No passages rightly interpreted can contradict 
the known teachings of the inspired volume. 

Third. As the practice of the Hebrew people did, to a 
great extent, contravene the law of God, nothing beyond 
what is written, is to be determined by what they did as a 
nation. 

Fourth. The Scriptures must not be interpreted by any 
modern custom, such as buying and selling slaves. 

Let us then, in view of these rules, enter upon the inves- 
tigation of the sacred oracles, to see whether they do or 
do not give any sanction to the system, of oppression that 
exists in our slaveholding States. 

First. What does the Old Testament teach on this sub- 
ject? What is the general sentiment of the law and the 
prophets, in relation to our fellow-men ? Let the infalli- 
ble Son of God answer. ''All things whatsoever ye 
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; 
for this is the law and the prophets," Matt, vii, 12. 
The teaching then of the Old Testament, the law and the 
prophets, is, that we shall love our fellow-men as our- 
selves. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; love 
worketh no ill to his neighbor ; therefore love is the ful- 



V 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 3 



filling of tlie law," Rom. xiii, 9, 10. Such is the inter- 
pretation of the Old Testament law. It enjoins the love 
that ** works no ill to. his neighbor." It follows then, of 
course, that it forbids any system of injury to our fellow- 
beings. It forbids us to hold men in a condition in which 
we would not ourselves be held ; consequently, the Old 
Testament does forbid all such systems of oppression as 
now exist in the slaveholding Slates. Therefore all the 
laws and institutions of the Old Testament ouoht to be so 
interpreted as to accord with the great and leading senti- 
ments of these ancient Scriptures, as presented by the 
Saviour, and not so as to harmonize wich a modern sys- 
tem of cruelty and oppression, inconceivably more wicked 
than any instituted by the moi'e barbarous nations of the 
earth. 

It will be in order to notice a passage found in Gen. 
ix, 25, 26, ^7, '* And he said, cursed be Canaan, a ser- 
vant of servants shall he be to his brethren. And he 
said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem ; and Canaan 
shall be his servant, God shall enlarge Japhet, and he 
shall dwell in the tents of Shem ; and Canaan shall be 
his servant." They that advocate the rightfulness of 
slaveholding, affirm that this curse included all the pos- 
terity of Hani, that it consigned all of them to slavery, 
and that the Africans all descended from him, and there- 
fore are rightfully held in perpetual bondage according to 
the revealed will and purpose of God, and that they are 
by him designedly fitted for such condition ; consequently, 
they affirm that no nation descended from Ham has ever 
risen to eminence among the nations of the earth. All 
this is mere assertion, unfounded and false. There is no 
evidence that any of Ham's posterity, except Canaan and 
his descendants, were included m this direful cui-se. Was 
not Nimrod, the founder of Babylon and Ninevah, a de- 



"t THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERT. 

Rcendant of Ham ? AVas not Egypt the mother of litera- 
ture, arts and sciences ? And was she not powerful 
among tlie nations of antiquity ? Were not the Ethiopians 
respectable and formidable ? Were not the Carthagenians 
the most energetic opponents of the Roman domination ? 
Were not all these the descendants of Ham, and were 
they not the first to found miglUy cities and empires, and 
to become eminent among the nations of the earth ? Tlie 
assertion that none of Ham's descendants have arisen to 
eminence and power among the nations is not true. 

Second. It is evident that the curse pronounced 
against Canaan is a mere prediction, and as such is 
no rule of conduct ; and therefore it proves nothing 
with respect to the rightfulness of slavery, nor is there 
any evidence that slavery was the thing predicted. The 
word servant is a o-eneral term, includini** all kinds of 
servants, without specifying any one kind, and therefore 
never can be made to prove anything either for or against 
the riu'htfulness of slaveholdino-. There is no such defi- 
nite terra as that of the English word slave found in the 
original Scriptures, consequently, the translators have 
never in a single instance translated any one of the origi- 
nal words into the definite term slave. The term slave 
occurs once in our translation of the Old Testament. 
Jer. ii, 14, " Is he a home born slave." But here it is a 
supplement by the translators, and not from the Hebrew, 
and it should have been servant and not slave. The 
word slaves occurs, Jiei>.x\m, 13, ** Slaves and souls of 
men." Tlie Greek is somaion, bodies and souls of men. 
It is not an}"" one of the words translated into tne terra 
servant, and there is no word in the original ScripturetJ 
that answers definitely to the word slave. The fact that 
tne translators have never so rendered any of the original 
•words is sufficient proof, consequently, from the term ser- 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SL AVERT. 5 

vant, nothing can be proved with respect to the kind of 
f 3rvitude intended, and therefore it cannot be proved that 
slavery was the thing predicted by Noah's curse. The 
history of the fulfillment of it shows, that national subju- 
gation was the thing predicted, and not slavery. The 
Hebrew men in Egypt were compelled to work in the 
service of the King, and in that respect were servants ; 
but not personal property, not slaves. The Hebrews, 
who had been servants in Egypt, took possession of the 
land of Canaan and of all the Canaanites possessed, so 
far as they were subjugated. And the nations that were 
not destroyed were reduced to tributaries. In these re- 
spects, the Hebrews enjoyed the fruits of the labor of the 
descendants of Canaan. In this sense, Canaan in his 
descendants, was a servant of servants. That is, a ser- 
vant of those that had been servants in Egypt. The He- 
brews did not make slaves of the Canaanites. It is true, 
that the Gibeonites were compelled to labor in the service 
of the temple ; but they were not made personal property, 
nor is there any reason to believe that they labored with- 
out wages. They had wives and children, and how could 
they, without wages, have supported them ? From the 
sacred records, it appears that the Gibeonites possessed 
houses and lands, and held property as other free people 
did, and were not slaves. In consequence of the oppres- 
sion of the Gibeonites by Saul, the Lord sent three years' 
famine upon Israel. — 2 Sam. xxi, 1-14. 

When the Hebrew nation was subdued by the descen- 
dants of Japhet, who, to a considerable extent, took 
possession of their houses and lands, and thus dwelt in 
the tents of Shem, the Canaanites were tributary to 
them, and in this respect Canaan was a servant to Japhet. 
The Canaanites have lono; since ceased to be a distinct 
people. The prediction has long since been fulfilled, and 



6 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

"was never intended to extend to modern times. The in- 
troduction of this prediction to sustain a modern system 
of slaverv, exhibits a great want of argument, and the 
extreme folly of the advocates of oppression. Silly and 
absurd as is the argument for slavery, dra-.vn from the 
curse of Noah, it is a fair specimen of the pro-slavery ar- 
auments in oeneral. It will be found that none of them 
liave any better foundation. 

The case of Abraham is next in order. It is affirmed 
that he, the father of the faithful, held slaves, and that 
what he did, his children may safely do. But then, 
Abraham had two wives at the same time. May his 
children have tAvo wives? The case of Abraham might 
be dismissed, by stating that he was a fallible man, liable 
to err in practice, like other men, and therefore, if he had 
held slaves, that would not prove that slaveholding is 
right. 

There is no evidence that Abraham was a slaveholder. 
The fact that Abraham sometimes bought persons with 
his money, does not prove that he held such persons as 
slaves. It is reasonable to believe that Abraham was a 
benevolent man, and as such would be prompted to buy 
captives, in order to release them from cruelty and op- 
pression, and we may suppose, that persons under such 
circumstances, would readily enter into his service, and be 
glad to secure his protection. Such a supposition accords 
well with the spirit of true religion, which, it must be ad- 
mitted, Abraham did possess. It is more reasonable to 
believe that such was the practice of Abraham, than that 
he held human beings as property. This seems the more 
probable from the fact, that when Hagar fled from Sarah, 
Abraham used no means to reclaim her. Another fact 
that bears upon this point is, that Sarah urged Abraham 
to cast out the bond-woman, and her son ; for, said she. 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 7 

** The son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my 
son." — Gen. xxi, 10. Sarah does not seem to recoonize 
any property right in this bond- woman. She did not 
urge Abraham to sell her ; but simply to turn her away, 
lest her son should be heir with Isaac. From what con- 
sideration Hagar was bound to Sarah, does not appear. 
The facts in the case are against the existence of tlie pro- 
perty relation. According to the property relation, Ish- 
mael, instead of being heir with Isaac, Avould have been a 
slave, and heired by Isaac. Abraham sent Hagar and 
her son away as being free. He claimed no right of pro- 
perty in them, nor is there any reason to believe that 
Hao-ar was held as a slave. The fact then, that Abra- 
ham bought persons with his money, is no evidence that 
he made them slaves. In all ages of the world, benevo- 
lent men have been prompted by humanity, to give their 
money to release persons from cruelty and oppression. 
British officers have sometimes purchased American pri- 
soners from the Indians, in order to save them being 
murdered with savage cruelty. We have a right to sup- 
pose that Abraham did the same thing, unless the oppo- 
site can be proved. 

Again, it is a fact, that a servant born in Abraham's 
house might be his heir. Gen. xv, 3, "So, one born in 
my house is mine heir." This shows that Abraham's 
servants were his adopted children. Kings in that age 
were fathers. Their subjects were real and adopted 
children. And that Abraham was a patriarchal king is 
evident from a variety of facts. 1. As such he was con- 
federate wich other kings, Gen. x\v, 13, "And these 
were confederate with Abram." Gen. xxi, 22-32, 
'"Abimelech and Phicol, the chief captains of his host, 
made a covenant with Abraham." 2. As a king, he 
trained his subjects for war Gen. xiv, 14, " He armed 



8 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred 
and eio-hteen." And as a kins:, lie made war and con- 
quered several kings, Gen. xiv, 9-15. 3. The authority 
Abraham confeired upon his eldest servant, and the oath 
he required of him, show that Abraham acted as a king, 
and that the servant was his prime minister ; and as such 
he was in authority even over Isaac, who had then 
come to years of maturity. 4. Abraham must have been a 
king, and his servants voluntary subjects, because, un- 
protected by civil government as he was, he could not 
have held so many persons to involuntary service. He 
must have had several thousand servants. He had three 
hundred and eighteen grown men that had been born 
in his own house. If we suppose an equal number of 
females born in his house, we shall have six hundred and 
thirty-six persons, besides the parents and all the children 
born during the time these were coming to maturity. A 
thing so absolutely absurd, as that Abraham, unprotected 
by civil government, could hold so great a number of per- 
sons in Slavery, it seems to me, none but an advocate for 
Slave-holdino- can believe. Who would dare to arm three 
hundred and eiohteen involuntary slaves, and march them 
against an enemy ? What neighborhood in any of our 
Slave States would not tremble at seeing so many slavef 
under arms ? How careful are the inhabitants of tht 
Slave States to keep weapons of death out of the hand; 
of the slaves. 5. When Abraham is represented as bein« 
rich, his servants are not mentioned. Qen. xiii, 2, "And 
Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." 
When he is represented as being great, his servants are 
mentioned as well as his cattle, and silver, and gold, Gen. 
xxiv, 35. Subjects as well as wealth add to a man's 
greatness, and therefore, man-servants and maid-servants 
are mentioned when it is said, " he is become great. " 



THE BIBLE GIVES KO SANCTION TO SLAVE RI. 9 

Numerous subjects add to the greatness of a king. 
6. Abraham is expressly called a mighty prince, Gen. 
xxiii, 6, '' Thou art a mighty prince." From the facts 
presented, it is evident that Abraham was a patriarchal 
king, and that his servants were voluntary subjects and 
not slaves. The government of Abraham was strictly 
religious. For this we have the Divin<3 testimony, Gen. 
xviii, 19, "For I know him that he will command his 
children and his household after him, and they shall 
keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment." 
Abraham and his subjects constituted but one household, 
one religious community, that acted according to justice 
and judgment. Abraham was the religious teacher and 
civil ruler. He was a royal priest, called and chosen of 
God to propagate true religion. In all the sacred reeords, 
we do not find in a mere man, a more striking example 
of devotion and piety, than that of Abraham's servant, 
who was sent, in princely state, to select a wife for Isaac. 
How striking the contrast, between Abraham and the j^a- 
triarchs of the South, with their ignorant, degraded, 
naked and hungry slaves, forced to their tasks by the 
overseer's lash. Abraham held his subjects as children, 
among whom he propagated knowledg-e and religion. 
The Southern pairioixJis hold their subjects as property, 
to be bought and sold as if beasts ; consign them to ig- 
norance, degradation and vice ; and, under severe pen- 
alties, prohibit them from learning to read a sentence in 
the sacred volume. 

The pro-slavery argument, founded upon the Mosaic 
institutions, now claims notice. This is deemed h^^' far the 
most plausible argument. 

It is, that God instituted slavery in his Church under 
the old dispensation, and did not forbid it under the new. 
If it was a privilege to hold slaves under the former dis- 



10 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

pensation, it is equally so under the present. The new 
dispensation was not intended to lessen, but to enlarge the 
privileges of God's people. In support of this position, 
the advocates of tiiis precious privilege of turning human 
beings into mere animals, and using them as appendages 
to their own being, introduce Lev. xxv, 44, 45, 46, 
*' Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou 
shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about 
you : of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. 
Moreover, of the children of strangers that do sojourn 
among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families 
that are with you, which they beget in your land : and 
they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as 
an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them 
for a possession, they shall be your bondmen forever ; but 
over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule 
over one another with rigor." It must be admitted that 
the Lord did institute the servitude here intended, and it 
seems evident that he did approve it. It must also be 
conceded, that the Lord, being the true owner, had a 
right to consign the heathen to Slavery as a punishment 
for crime, as civil governments send men to the peniten- 
tiary in consequence of the violation of the law. But if 
the Lord did, as a punishment, consign a particular people 
to slavery, that would not justify the enslavement of any 
other people. 

The institution of slavery among the Isiaelites, could 
not give such right in any other case. If then, we were 
compelled to admit, that God instituted slavery in Israel, 
that could not justly be brought to justify American Sla- 
very. If the Israelites held slaves, they had a warrant 
from tlie true owner. When the American slaveholder 
produces such a warrant for slaveholding, all will admit 
his claims. 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 11 

It cannot be proved that the servitude instituted was 
slavery. It has been said that Moses found slavery 
among the Israelites, and could not safely abolish ii at 
once, and therefore, he made such regulations as would 
gradually extinguish it. But it is absurd to suppose, that 
Moses, acting by Divine authority, and in view of the 
lightnings and thunderings of Mount Sinai, could not 
safely abohsh slavery, had it existed in Israel. It 
should be remembered that the Israelites had just 
come from a land in which they had been compelled 
to make brick without straw, and of course, had 
no slaves. If slavery existed in Israel, it was by Di- 
vine institution, after the exit from Egypt. To suppose 
that God instituted slavery among his people, is 
to suppose that he did that which none but a madman 
would do in Ohio or Pennsylvania. Would any but a 
madman introduce slavery into a free State ? God 
brought his people out of Egypt in order to propagate re- 
ligion, and is it reasonable to believe, that he would 
institute among them a system utterly subversive of the 
end for which he established them in Canaan ? \Vlio 
does not know, that slavery subverts religion, by pro- 
ducing the most degrading vices ? \Vho can look upon 
the soul-destroying influences of American slavery, and 
believe that God instituted a similar system in his Church ? 
It is then, most unreasonable to believe, that the Lord djd 
institute slavery among his people. Let us now see 
whether the passage presented does prove the institution 
of such system. Nothing can be proved by the terms 
bond-men and bond-maids. These terms do not express 
the kind of bondao-e intended. In the Greek translation, 
the words are j^ow, a boy, and jjcddisJci, a girl. Both the 
boy and girl who shall be to you shall be of the heathens 
who are round about you. Aj) miion Mesasthi doidon kai 



12 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

dotilen ; of them ye shall obtain a male servant and a fe- 
male servant. The Greek terms, like those of the He- 
brew aftd the English, do not determine the kind of 
servants to be obtained. They do not definitely mean 
Slaves ; and therefore nothing can be proved from the 
terms, because they are general and applicable to all kinds 
of servants. It cannot be proved from the circumstances 
that slaves were intended. Tlie fact that they were 
bought or obtained, does not prove that the persons 
so obtained were slaves. This may be true of servants 
that are not slaves. Such servants formerly existed 
in this country. They were boug^it with money, and 
might be left as an inheritance to children in case the 
parents died before the term of service expired, and yet 
they were not slaves ; they held property, and made 
contracts as freemen, and yet they were bound to service, 
and in that sense were bond-men, but not the property 
of another. The service was voluntary and for wages. 
Many in this way, paid their passage from Europe in for- 
mer times. Apprentices are bond-men, and in some 
cases receive stripes, yet tliey are not slaves. A slave, 
m our sense of the term, is oae that is held as property ; 
a mere rational thinf/, used for the owner'^s benefit. That 
God ever placed his rational creatures in such condition, 
is hard to believe. 

.The fact that it is said, "They shall be your bond-men 
for ever,** does not prove that they were slaves. The 
same persons could not be held forever. The meaning 
is, that they might forever in this way keep up a succes- 
sion of servants. In this way, they might forever serve 
themselves of the heathen. That slavery was instituted 
in Israel, cannot be proved from this passage. The pro- 
slavery interpretation of it is not ti'ue. If the passage 
is obscure and difficult, it ought to be so interpreted as to 



THE BIBLE GIVES XO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 13 

harmoTiize with other laws and institutions, and especially 
with the teaching and sentiment of the Old Testament; 
**A11 things whatsoever ye would that men should do to 
you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and the 
prophets." ** Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 
"Loveworketh no ill to his neighbor ; therefore love is 
the fulfilling of the law." 

Now, according to the law, I am considering the ser- 
vants were to be bought, not taken in war, not forced to 
service, as is the case with slaves. The Israe-lites made 
so many conquests, that they could easily, without pur- 
chase, have supplied themselves with slaves, if that had 
been allowed. If they had not regarded tlie principles of 
justice, they could easily have forced into slavery the 
stranoers that dwelt amono- ihem. From these circum- 
stances, it is reasonable to believe, that they purchased 
such poor heathen and sojourners, as chose to sell them- 
selves to service for a term of years, and that the dift'er- 
ence between these and Hebrew servants was, that they 
might contract for a longer term, and might, by scourging, 
be coerced to fill their contract, while the Hebrew ser- 
vants could not be so treated. They must .be treated as 
hired servants. The bought servant became an adopted 
son during the time of service, as such, was circumcised 
and admitted to the passover, and became an Israelite by 
professsion, and took the rank of his master's family. 
The hired Gentile servant was not admitted to the pass- 
over : "A hir(;d servant shall not eat thereof;" and 
therefore, he enjoyed less privilege than the bought ser- 
vant. That persons did thus sell themselves is clearly 
stated in the context, Lev. xxv, 47, 48, "And if a so- 
journer or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother 
that dwelleth by him w^ax poor, and sell himself unto the 
stranger, he may be redeemed." Thus, by this state- 



14 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

ment of the manner in which persons sold themselves to 
service, -we are enabled to understand the law of servi- 
tude, and to determine tlie kind of servants that existed 
in Israel. They were such persons as sold themselves to 
service, and were compensated for their services. There 
was nothing wrong in procuring servants in this way 
This view of the servitude in Israel is doubtless the true 
one. In Israel there were no slave markets, and no 
cases of persons selling slaves under the Hebrew laws, 
nor of any person buying a slave from a third person. 
As a punishment, and to make restitution, persons were 
sold for theft, but not as slaves. The sale of per- 
sons for debt sometimes occurred, in times of declension 
in piety, and consequent oppression, 2 Kings, iv, 5. 
But this w^as not authorized by the Divine law. The 
oppressive creditor came to take the two sons of a 
widow for bond-men. Such oppression as this, there 
is no reason to believe that God approved. These were 
Hebrews, whom God had said should not be sold as 
bond-men. 

The fact, that the servant is said to be the master's 
money, is not against the interpretation I have given. 
The reference is to Exod. xxi, .20, 21, If the servant died 
under his master's hand, the master should be punished 
as a murderer ; but if the servant continued a day or 
two, the master should not be punished, " for he is his 
monev." The meaning is, that inasmuch as the master 
had paid his money for the services of the servant, it was 
to be presumed that he did not kill him ; but that the ser- 
vant died of some disease. A man would not be likely 
to throw away his money by killing a servant he had 
bought. Xothing can be more detestable than the pro- 
slavery interpretation, that because the servant was his 
master's property, therefore it was not murder to kill him. 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 16 

This is truly making a man a mere rational thing y which 
the owner may kill if he chooses. 

The interpretation now given, is confirmed by other 
laws and recorded facts, Deut. x, 18, 19, '' Tlie Lord 
loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. 
Love ye therefore the stranger, for ye were strangers in 
the land of Epypt." To make a man a slave is incon- 
sistent with the love here enjoined. I^xod, xxii, 21, 
" Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him ; 
for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." What 
could more vex and oppress the stranger than to make 
him a slave. Nothing could be more inconsistent with 
these laws than slavery. Deut. xxiv, 14, 15, "Thou 
shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, 
whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that 
are in thy land within thy gates. At his day thou shaU 
o-ive him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it, 
for he is poor and setteth his heart upon it ; lest he cry 
ao-ainst thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee." 
This shows how strictly the Lord guarded the rights of 
the poor, both Hebrews and Gentiles ; but according to 
pro-slavery interpretation, if this poor man had been so 
unfortunate as to have been stolen and sold as a slave, then 
one might take his labor and his hberty life-long, without 
compensation. According to this, it appears that Avhen a 
man is so unfortunate as to be made a slave, he is placed 
beyond even the protection and compassion of his Creator. 
How unreasonable to believe that the Lord would protect 
the poor hireling from being robbed of a single day's 
labor, and yet suffer one, poorer still, to be robbed with 
impunity, Hfe-long. Deut. xxiii, 15, 16, " Thou shalt not 
deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from 
his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even 
among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of 



16 THK BIBLE GIVKS xNO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

thy gates where it liketli liira best : thou shalt not op- 
press him." Tlie servitude in Israel was right, because 
according to the Divine law, and therefore, it is unrea- 
sonable to apply this law to servants in Israel. The ser- 
vants among tlie heathen were slaves, that had been 
either stolen or taken as captives in war, and therefore, 
unjustly held. To deliver such to their masters would be 
both unjust and cruel, because it would be not only de- 
livering the slave to unjust bondage, but also to cruel 
treatment. It would be man-stealina: of the worst form, 
and consequently, the nation of Israel was prohibited 
from delivering up the slaves of the surrounding nations, 
no difference how powerful they might be, or how great 
might be tlie peril resulting. This law shows strikingly 
God's abhorence of slaveholding, and his sympathy Avith 
the fugitive slave. He would sooner jeopardize a nation's 
peace than have a single fugitive slave delivered to his 
master. This law involves a fundamental moral princi- 
ple ; that is, " the love that Avorketh no ill to his neigh- 
bor," and " is the fulfilling of the law," and therefore, is 
of perpetual obligation. Consequently, the late fugitive 
law of Congress, is high-handed rebellion against God, 
and must not be obeyed even at the peril of life. It is 
practical atheism ; it is the establishment of an Ameri- 
can inquisition, with inquisitors in every county, to perse- 
cute, line and imprison the most humane and pious citi- 
zens for obeying God, and the dictates of humanity and 
conscience. 

Exod. xxi, IG, "And he that stealeth a man, and sel- 
letli him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be 
j)ut to death." The design of stealing a man, is that of 
making gain by enslaving him ; and therefore, the mean- 
ing of this law is, he that makes a man a slave, sells or 
holds him as such, shall surely be put to death. God 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERl'. 17 

annexed the same penalty to making a man a slave, that 
he did to murderinof a man. Is it not unreasonable to be- 
lieve, that God would make it death to reduce a man to 
slavery, and yet allow his people to hold him as such 
when enslaved ? If his people bought slaves of the 
heathen, they were persons that had either been stolen 
or taken captives in Avar, which is in fact the same thing 
as stealing them, and to buy such and hold them as slaves 
would have been no better than to steal them at once, and 
save the purchase money. 

It is easy to see that the pro-slavery interpretation 
throws the laws and institutions of the Old Testament 
into absolute confusion. It makes law to conflict with 
law, and sentiment with sentiment, in contradiction Avild, 
and confused as original chaos. It is no wonder that in 
such view of the Sacred Oracles, the world is becoming full 
of infidels. The Lord, by the law of Jubilee, guarded the 
system of servitude in Israel against becoming a system 
of slavery. Lev. xxv, 10, ** And ye shall hallow the fif- 
tieth year, and shall proclaim liberty throughout all the 
land, unto all the inhabitants thereof." Ko contract for 
service could extend bevond the vear of Jubilee. Tiiis 
was a type of tlie gospel which was to be proclaimed to 
every creature; and, of course, the proclamation of Jubilee 
was to every rational creature in the land of Israel. 
Consequently, slavery could not exist in Israel as a Di- 
vine institution. The teaching of the prophets was di- 
rectly against all oppression. No other sin is so often 
mentioned and rebuked as that of oppression. By them 
God commanded every yoke of oppression to be broken. 
Isaiah Iviii, 6, **Isnot this the fast that I have chosen, to 
loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy bur- 
dens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break 
every yoke ?" When the Jews held their brethren to 



IQ THE UlULE GIVE3 NO SANCTION TO SLAVERT 

service beyond contract, God sent Jeremiah to demand 
their release. At first obedience was rendered, and the 
oppressed were Uberated, and then were again reduced to 
service, and for that the nation v/as doomed *'to tlie 
sword, to pestilence, and to famine," and to dispersion 
anion"- all nations. Je7\ xxxiv, 8-22, No other sin lias 
God more signally punished than that of the oppression 
of holding men in bondage. And the facts presented in 
Jeremiah and Isaiah, show that bondage beyond contract 
is one kind of oppression forbidden by the prophets, and it 
is expressly said, " Thou shalt not vex a stranger, neither 
shalt thou oppress him." If it is oppression to hold a 
Jew in bondage beyond his contract, it is equally oppres- 
sion to hold a Gentile in bondage beyond his contract, 
and hence God commands the breaking of eveiy yoke, 
whether it; be upon the neck of the Jew or of the Gentile. 

Thus it is just as clear as the sunbeams in the heavens, 
that slavery is prohibited by the law and the prophets. 
The servitude of the Old Testament was by voluntary 
contract, and for just compensation. It inferred no de- 
gradation. 1 Chron. ii, 34, 35, "Now Sheshan had no 
sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a servant, an 
Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave 
liis daughter to Jarha his servant to wife."' The servant 
in Israel being an adopted son, took tlie rank of his 
master's family, and like an apprentice with ns, might 
marry his master's daughter. Hence, at the anointing of 
Saul, when Samuel made a feast, he ** took Saul, and his 
servant, and brought them into the parlor, and made 
them sit in the chiefest place among them that were 
bidden." 1 Sam. ix, 22. These facts show clearly, that 
the servant, whether Jew or Gentile, took the rank of his 
master's family, and that no degradation attended the 
servitude instituted in Israel. The servant in Israel 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 19 

could hold Lis own property, and make liis own contracts. 
2 Sam. IX, 10, " Ziba, Saul's servant, had fifteen sons and 
twenty servants." This implies that he was a man of 
extensive property, and of course, made his own con- 
tracts, else how could he procure such property, and em- 
ploy so many servants. 

The view nov»r given of the servitude instituted in 
Israel, is in accordance with reason and right ; it harmo- 
nizes the laws and institutions of the Old Testament, and 
is clearly sustained by the law and the prophets ; it 
presents the divine institutions in a lovely aspect, the ban- 
ners of liberty and mercy waved upon the mountains of 
Israel in view of the surroundinof nations, in which were 
the habitations of darkness, oppression and cruelty. Is- 
rael, as a nation, was designed to be the example and 
liii-ht of the ancient world, and her laws and institutions 
were calculated to make her the glory of the world. The 
celebrated republics of Greece and Rome were infinitely 
behind the theocracy of Israel. In this favored nation 
the God of mercy held his throne, and no crouching 
slave sat beneath his fuet to disgrace his land. Shame 
on the Christian minister that would move his pen to 
fasten upon God's holy institutions a charge so deep, and 
dark, and horrible as that of sustaining slavery. 

The pro- slavery argument, founded on the teachings 
of Christ and his Apostles, will now be considered. It is 
affirmed by the advocates of slavery, that Christ did not 
forbid slaveholding, and therefore it is not wrong. 
Christ, say they, would certainly have forbidden it, if 
sinful. The truth of this affirmation may be justly ques- 
tioned. Christ re-affirmed the law and the prophets, and 
gave them his highest sanction, and made them the rule 
of action under the new dispensation. Matt, v, 17-19, 
•'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the 



20 TUB BIBLE GIVES KO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

prophets : I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily 
I say unto you, till lieaven or earth pass away, one jot or 
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful- 
filled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of the least 
of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall 
be called least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever 
shall do, and teach them, the same shall be called great 
in the kingdom of heaven." Matt xxii, 36-40, " Master, 
which is the great commandment in the law ? Jesus said 
unto him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and Avith all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 
This is the first and great commandment. And the second 
is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 
On these two commandments hang all the law and the 
prophets." Matt, vii, 12, "Therefore all things whatso- 
ever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so 
to them : for this is the law and the prophets.'* From 
these passages, it is as clear as truth can be, that Christ 
does make the law and the prophets the rule of Christian 
conduct. He enjoins all that the law and the prophets 
enjoin, and forbids all that they forbid. And according 
to this exposition of the law and the prophets, they forbid 
every possible injur}'- that man can do to his fellow man. 
We are forbidden to do anything that is inconsistent with 
lovinor our neio-hbor as ourselves. We are forbidden to 
do to any human being what we would not have done to 
ourselves. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, there- 
fore love is the fulfilling of the law." Rom. xiii, 10. If 
holding a man, and using him as property is no injury, 
then no injury can be done to a man. If to rob a man 
of property is a sin, how much more criminal is it to de- 
prive him of the means of procuring and holding pro- 
perty. That slavery works ill to man, cannot be honestly 
denied ; and, therefore, Christ forbids slavery. The law 



THE BIBLE GIVES KO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 21 

condemns to death the man who makes his fellow man a 
slave, "He that stealetli a man and selleth him, or if he 
be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." 
The design of stealing a man is that of making him a 
slave, and therefore, the meaning of the law is, he that 
makes a man a slave, sells or holds him as such^ will 
surely be put to death. 

There is no way in which an innocent man can be made a 
slave, that is any more honest than stealing him. No 
innocent man was ever held in slavery by a title better than 
the thief's title. Slavery begins and ends in robbery, 
and the eisrhth commandment is, "Thou shalt not steal.'* 
The law, then, does both in its spirit and letter forbid sla- 
very, under the severest penalty. Christ adopted this 
law as the law of his government, therefore he did forbid 
slavery as a whole and in all its parts. 

The prophets taught the sentiments of the law, and 
they forbid all the things involved in slavery. 

Fi7^si. The prophets forbid the taking of labor without 
wages. Mai. iii, 5, " The Lord will be a swift witness 
against those that oppress the hireling in his wages.'* 
Jer. xxii, 13, "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by 
unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong : that useth 
his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not 
for his work." Luke x, 7, " The laborer is worthy of his 
hire." If one man has a right to wages for his labor, all 
men have. Christ affirms that the laborer is worthy of 
his hire, and the prophets condemn those who withhold 
wages from the laborer, and denounce a woe against them 
as oppressors. Slavery withholds wages from the laborer, 
and therefore, the prophets forbid slavery. 

Second. The prophets forbid oppression. Unjust bon- 
dage is one kind of oppression mentioned in the law and 
the prophets. £xocL iii, 9, " I also have seen the oppres- 



22 THE BIBLE GIVES IS'O SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

sion wherewith tlie Egyptians oppress them." Bondage 
was a part of the oppression of Egypt. Jer. xxxiv, 8-20. 
The Jews held their brethren in bondage contrary 
to justice and the law of God on that subject. This 
was the kind of bondage now called slavery. It was in- 
voluntary service Avithout contract and without wages, 
consequently unjust, and for this the Jew^s were delivered 
"to the sword, to pestilence, and to be removed into all 
the kin<:rdoms of the earth." If it be said that this w^as 
for enslaving their brethren contrary to law, I reply, to 
enslave a stranger was e(j^ual oppression, and equally con- 
trary to law. "Thou shalt not vex a stranger, neither 
shalt thou oppress him." Tiie prophets, then, do forbid 
all such oppression as slavery is. And by them the 
Lord does command the Jews to let all such go free. Isa. 
Iviii, G, " Is not this the fast tjjat I have chosen to loose 
the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and 
to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every 
yoke." This command extends to all enslaved persons, 
and shows that slavery is oppression, and contrary to the 
laws and institutions of tlie Old Testament. It is evident 
tiiat the law and the prophets do forbid slavery and all 
that constitutes it. Christ re-affirms the law and the pro- 
phets, and therefore, he did forbid slavery, and his own 
personal teachings are decidedly against all that consti- 
tutes slavery. 

It is said by the advocates of slavery, that it existed in 
the Apostolic Churches, that slaveholders were admitted 
to communion, and that tlie Apostles gave directions to 
masters And slaves respecting their relative duties. In 
proof of this they cite 1 Tim. vi, I, 2, " Let as many ser- 
vants as are under the yoke count their own masters 
worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doc- 
trine be not blasphemed, and they that have beheving- 



THE BIBLE GIVES KO SANCTION TO SLAYERY. 25 

masters, let them not despise them, because tliey are 
brethren, but rather do them service, because thev are 
faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit." It is 
f-enerailv admitted that the servants under the yoke were 
slaves, but this admission is without proof. It cannot be 
proved by the terms used. The term yoke is figurative, 
and applicable to any kind of subjection or obligation. 
The Saviour said, '' take my yoke upon you." Malt, xi, 
29, 30. The same word zz(r/on{joke)\s used in both places. 
And this is sufficient to show that nothing can be proved by 
the term yoke. If it had been pons, the foot, it would have 
been more like slavery. A slave is andrapodoii, from 
aner a man, and ;;o?/.9 the foot. This word, definitely 
meaning a slave, does not occur in the Scriptures. Nothing 
can be proved from the word doidoi, servants, for that is 
a general term ansAvering to our Enghsh word servant, 
which never defines anyone kind of servants. This term 
can be applied to slaves only as servants, and not as 
slaves. The word doulos means simply one that serves, 
without describing his relation as a servant. The learned 
world is challenged to show that it means anything else 
than simply one who serves, without any respect to the 
particular relation under wliich he does serve. He may 
serve voluntarily, he may serve as a hireling, or as one 
that has sold his services for a term of years, or as an 
apprentice, or as one unjustly compelled to serve as a 
slave, or he may serve as the subject of a king, or as a 
minister of the gospel, or as an officer, or as a legislator, 
or one who serves in any way of which we possibly can 
conceive. Our English word servant is an exact transla- 
lation of the Greek word doidos. And to translate it into 
the definite word slave, is a gross violation of the origi- 
nal. Our translators of the Scriptures have uniformly 
translated the word doulos into the word servant, never 



24 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

into the word slave, and for the reason that it never 
means slave. There were other servants in the Roman 
Empire besides slaves. The Apostles addressed servants 
in general, but never slaves in particular, and therefore, 
the term slave {andrapodori) is not found in Apostolic 
writino-s. And so they address masters in general, but 
never a slave- master in particular. The term slave- 
holder is once, and once only, found in the ApostoUc 
writino-s. I Tim, i, 9, 10, ** Knowing this, that the law is 
not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and 
disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the un- 
holy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers 
of mothers, for man-slayers, for whoremongers, for them 
that defile themselves with mankind, for andrapodistaisy 
(slaveholders,) for liars, for perjured persons, and if there 
be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." 
The translators rendered andrapodlstais into man-stealers, 
and very justly, because all slaveholders in the Roman 
Empire were man-stealers, according to the Divine law. 
The same is true of all American slaveholders, how hono- 
rable soever they may be in other respects. 

The English word master, is a general term that does 
not describe the sense in which one is master ; conse- 
quently we say, schoolmaster, horse-master, master of 
apprentices, slave -master. Thus, the kind of master 
must be described by some other word. Kurios and des- 
potes, each translated into master, do not define the rela- 
tion by which one is master or lord. It is therefore 
denied, in the face of the whole learned world, that the 
Apostles did, in any of their writings, address either 
slaves or slave-masters in particular. They used just 
such terms as would be appropriate in any free State. 
They simply address masters and servants in general, and 
define and enjoin such mutual duties as exist in free 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SAN'CTION TO SLAVERY. 25 

States. And they enjoined mutual duties wholly subver- 
sive of any slave system. If Paul had said, let as many 
andrapoda (slaves) as are under the yoke, count their own 
masters worthy of all honor, there could have been no 
doubt but that he meant slaves and none else ; but in- 
stead of andrapoda, (slaves,) he uses doidoi, (servants.) 
And besides this, it is not easy to see how slaves, unjustly 
held as property, and robbed of their rights, could count 
their own oppressors worthy of all honor. It is affirmed 
then, that it cannot be proved that slaves were intended 
by servants under the yoke. But if slaves were meant, 
it proves nothing, inasmuch as their masters were unbe- 
lievers. The servants that had believing masters are not 
represented as being under the yoke, and are taught not 
to despise their masters, but voluntarilv to do them ser- 
vice. This implies that they were at liberty to decline 
their service, were liable to be tempted to despise their 
masters and leave their service ; else why should the op- 
posite be enjoined. There is no evidence that believing 
masters were slaveholders. 

The case of Onesimus is likewise cited as proof that 
slaveholders were in communion. That Onesimus was a 
servant to Philemon is clear, but that he was a slave there 
is no evidence. It appears that Onesimus was a relative 
of Philemon. Phil. 16, ''Not now as a servant, but 
above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me, but 
how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the 
Lord." Unless a relative, how could he be any 
dearer to Philemon than to Paul " in the flesh and in the 
Lord ?" The probability is. that he was a poor relative, 
that Philemon had brought him up, and that he had been 
a wayward boy, and had left service before he had re- 
munerated Philemon for the expense of bringing him up, 
and tlierefore, might be justly indebted to him. Henct? 



f6 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERl'. 

Paul said, " If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee 
ought, put that to mhie account ; I will repay it." This is 
wholly inconsistent with the idea that Onesimus was a 
slave. Had Paul believed it right to hold men as pro- 
perty, and that he was rightfully held as a slave, would 
he have expressed any doubt respecting his owing Phile- 
mon service for life ? Or would he pledge himself to 
put that in for him ? As a slave, could he owe anything 
unless it were service for life ? If Paul believed slave- 
holding right, would he have asked Philemon to give up 
his rightful claim of service ? One of two things is true ; 
either Onesimus was not a slave, or Paul believed slave- 
holding wrong, and that slaves ought to be set free. Had 
Onesimus been a slave, Paul would have said, not as a 
slave, (andrapodon,) but above a slave; instead of say- 
ing, not as a servant, (doidos,) but above a servant. 

It is strange that many suppose that there were in the 
Roman Empire no other servants than slaves. In all 
countries there are persons bound to service for just con- 
siderations ; they are hable to do wrong, and even if they 
do well, they are liable to be badly treated, and therefore, 
it is necessary that the Scriptures should enjoin the mu- 
tual duties of master and servant. Such duties the 
Apostle enjoined, and in just such terms as are in com- 
mon use in free States, where slavery does not exist ; 
terms that are appropriate in all ages and in all places. 
The Hoi}'' Spirit dictated such general terms as are 
adapted to all times and all nations, and not such as were 
applied to a single class in a particular nation and age. 
In a moral sense, slaves, as such, owe no duties to their 
masters ; but may, and ought to escape from them when- 
ever it is possible to be done with safety. Consequently, 
the Apostles never addressed them in particular as slaves, 
nor their masters as slaveholders. 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO 6LAVERT. 27 

From what has been said, it appears that there is no 
evidence that slaveholders were admitted to membership 
in the Apostolic Churches. There is not the least evi- 
dence that the believing masters were slave-masters. 
Judea was a free State ; the Jews held no slaves. They 
hired their laborers, as the parable of the vineyard re- 
presents. The servants of the father of the Prodigal 
Son were hired and not slaves. The first Christian 
Churches were founded in Judea, where there were no 
slaves, and doubtless the Gentile Churches were formed 
after the model of the Jewish Churches, no slaveholders 
were received. Tlie Roman Government at that time 
placed no obstacles in the way of liberating slaves ; and 
therefore was, in this respect, more liberal than our slave 
States. If a slave-holder became a Christian, he could 
easilv set his slaves free ; and there is no reason to believe 
that any were received into the church while hvino' in the 
practice of the worst form of oppression. No man can 
prove that such were received to Church fellowship. 

That the Apostles forbid all that constitutes slavery, 
will now be shown. 

First. The Apostles sanctioned the Old Testament 
Scriptures, and therefore, all that is said in the law and 
the prophets against oppression and wrong doing, they 
have approved. This is the same as to forbid all that 
the law and the prophets do forbid. 

Second. Slavery abolishes marriage, and, consequently, 
is a system of adultery and fornication. Who does not 
know, that the parts of the South in which slaves are nu- 
merous, are little else than common brothels ? The 
Apostles forbid adultery and fornication, and therefore 
forbid slavery, as involving in it these degrading and ru- 
inous vices. 

Third. Slavery is extortion. It extorts from a man 



28 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

all, except bare existence, and therefore is the worst kind 
of 'extortion. The Apostles declare that *' extortioners 
shall not inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. 5-10. 
The Apostles, therefore, forbid slavery. 

Fourth. The Apostles forbid oppression. Slavery is 
the worst form of oppression, and therefore is forbidden. 
If to force a man down to to the rank of beasts, that are 
bought and sold, and to compel him to labor without con- 
tract, and without wages, is not oppression, there is no 
such thing as oppression. 

Fifth. Slavery deprives the slave of hberty, of the 
marriage and family rights, of wages and possessing pro- 
perty, and, of course, slavery is unrighteousness. And 
therefore the Apostles forbid it. Rom. i, 18, ''The 
wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all un- 
godliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth 
in unrighteousness." What other system than that of 
American slavery does so entirely sum up in it all kinds 
of unrighteousness ? What other system does so hold, 
that is, hinder the truth, in unrighteousness ? What 
other system has so entirely taken away the key of know- 
ledfj^e? And what other system chains its victims down 
to ignorance under penalties so heavy ? What is there in 
American slavery that the Apostles do not forbid ? 

The Apostles give such instructions to masters and 
servants as are calculated to abolish any system of slavery. 
1 Cor. vii, 21-23, "Art thou called being a servant, care 
not for it ; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather; 
ye are bought with a price ; be not ye the servants of 
men." The Apostles use the word doulos, (servant,) 
which is applicable to any one that serves, consequently, it 
is applicable to any who are bound to service. He gives 
an injunction to servants in general, so far as such were 
in any kind of bondage to men, to obtain freedom if pos- 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 29 

sible. The use of doulos (servant) instead of andrapodon 
(slave), forms a testimony against every form of bondage. 
The expression in the Greek is strong, — ** If thou hast 
power to be free, use it rather." It is the duty of every 
man in bondage, who can justly do it, to free himself. 
If a man is, for just considerations, bound to service, he 
ought, in justice, although inconvenient, to fulfill the ser- 
vice due, unless honorably discharged ; but the slave, 
being unjustly held in bondage, may at any time, and 
whenever he can do it with safety, ought to escape from 
his master. The injunction to be free can mean no less 
than that it is the duty of all in bondage to free them- 
selves whenever they can justly and safely do it. One 
reason assigned is, "ye are bought witli a price." And 
that price was the atoning blood of Christ. He had re- 
deemed them for his service, and therefore, they ought 
not so to be under the control of men, as to prevent 
entire service to him. " Be not ye tl e servants of men," 
\i douloi (servants), mean slaves, as the advocates of sla- 
very affirm, then we have a positive injunction never to 
be slaves of men ; but the injunction ( xtcnds even farther 
than this, it makes it the duty of men to free themselves, 
so far as it can be justly done, from every species of bon- 
da'T-e ; and for the reason that there is no species of bon- 
dage to imperfect men, that may not interfere with the 
duties we owe to our Redeemer. Had the Apostle used 
the word andrupoda, (slaves), then the duty enjoined 
would have been simply, be not the slaves of men ; but 
having used douloi, (servants), the duty enjoined extends 
to every form of bondage. It is true, that the word 
douloi, standing alone, does not of itself imply anything 
more than persons that serve ; but the connection shows 
that bond-servants of some kind or other were intended. 
It is, therefore, an injunction to all bound to the service 



30 THE BIKLK GIVES KO SANCTION TO SLAVERr. 

of others. It is ;i glorious decision against all bondage to 
men, and a noble testimony in favor of universal freedom. 
Glory to God for this decision against oppression, and for 
liberty ! We have here, (as Paul ^Yas inspired,) the 
mind of God aoainsl all bondao-e to men. Ail such bon- 
dage is liable to interfere with the happiness of men and 
the service due to God. While it has always been 
deemed lawful for a man, in order to avoid greater evils, 
to sell himself to service for a term of years, yet the 
Scriptures and experience both teach that, so far as pos- 
sible, it should be avoided, because liable to produce 
misery, as well as to interfere with the duties of religion. 
For a man to enter into such bondage, without some 
absolute necessity, is sinful. 

It is the duty of the servant to obtain freedom so far as 
it is possible and just for him to do it. Of course, the 
correspondent duty of the master is to yield to all the 
claims of justice, and let servants go free. Collos. iv, 1, 
• ' Masters give unto your servants that which is just and 
equal." He does not address slave-masters in particular, 
but masters in general. It must be admitted, that it is 
just for the master to allow the servant to do what Paul 
enjoins as a duty ; that is, to obtain freedom if he can. 
If it be just for the servant to be free, it is the duty of 
the master to let him go free. If slave-masters are in- 
tended, then they are commanded to let their slaves go 
free ; nothing less than this can be just and equal. If 
the Apostle intends masters in general, as the term mas- 
ters imphes, then the duties enjoined are just wages, kind 
treatment, remuneration for injuries done them, and free- 
dom according to justice. It is easy to see that slaves 
could not be held under such injunctions as these. Let 
American slave-holders give to their slaves that which is 
just and equal, ur as it is in the Greek, "justice and 



THE BIBLE GIVES NO SAXCTIOX TO SLAVERY. 31 

equality," and freedom will be the first thing given ; and 
the next, so far as possible, remuneration for the injury 
done them. ' The Apostle James denounces a dreadful woe 
against those who deprive the laborer of his hire, that is, 
wages. James v, 1-4, " Go to now, ye rich men, weep 
and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you." 
" Behold the hire of the laborers, who have reaped down 
your fields, which is by you kept back by fraud, crieth, 
and the cries of them which have reaped, are entered 
into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." Who in the Ro- 
man Empire but slave-holders did this ? The rich men 
were slaveholders, and the slaves reaped their fields with- 
out hire. Who but the slaves reap the fields of the rich 
men in the slave States without hire ? If such an Epistle 
as that of James were written to the inhabitants of the 
slave States, who but slaveholders could be intended as 
the rich men in general, Avho pay no wages to their la- 
borers ? The denunciation by James could be intended 
for none but the Roman slaveholders. These Avere the 
rich men that paid no wages to their laborers. 

Paul affirms the law was not made for a rio-hteous 
man, but for amlrapodistais, (slaveholders). 1 Tim. i, 
9, 10. Tlie word andrapodistais is compounded of aner 
(a man.) and ;;o?/5, (the foot,) and means that class of 
men who put their feet upon men, and make them andro- 
poda, (slaves.) Andrapodon is a slave, one on whom the 
foot has been put, and andrcqyodistai are the persons who 
put tlicir feet upon men and make them slaves, and hold 
them as property, and are literally slavehoUers. These 
the Apostle ranks with murderers of fathers and mothers. 
There is no reason to believe that slaveholders, Avhile 
ranked amongst the worst of criminals, were admitted to 
church fellowship. And the assertion that Christ and his 
Apostles did not forbid slaveholding, is utterly false. We 



32 THE BIBLE GIVES NO SANCTION TO SLAVERY. 

micfht as well assert, that -when the Catholics, in excom- 

o 
munication, beoin and curse the excommunicated in his 

hair, and proceed to curse all the parts of his body, and 
then curse him as a whole, they do not curse him at all, 
as to say that Christ and his Apostles do not forbid sla- 
very. They have forbidden it in all its parts, and then as 
a whole. The charge that the Sacred Volume justifies 
slaveholding is without foundation, and is, no doubt, a 
cunninof device of the devil, desiafned to excite diso-ust at 
the Sacred Oracles, and to array the feelings of humanity 
against Divine Revelation. To bring the Scriptures into 
conflict with humanity is tl.e most certain way of propa- 
gating infidelity, and that of a form the most dangerous. 
It seats itself in the sympathies of the soul, and in the 
strongest affections of the human heart. The more sym- 
pathetic and affectionate a man is, the more he is in danger 
of fallino^ into this kind of infidelitv. 

While other forms of infideUty have been cold and 
speculative, and have possessed nothing calculated to fire 
up the soul and inspire zeal, this form goes forth lighting 
up all that is inflammable in the mind, seizes upon the 
strongest passions of the heart, and turns the strono-er 
currents of human nature against Divine revelation, be- 
cause men are made to believe that the Sacred Oracles 
sanction the horrible system of slavery. Is it not 
time that all lovers of the Sacred Scriptures should unite 
m presenting them to the world in a true light, as oppos- 
ing every system of oppression and wrong, and enjoininrr 
supreme love to God, and universal benevolence to man? 
Let this be done, and soon the kingdoms of this world 
will become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ. 



American Reform Tract and Book SociETy, 

CINCINNATI, OHIO. 



\\ 







^** Va. a* 







.♦.o' 




U* "^ 
















^^^n ^ 
^^^^' 



















.♦^<^ 







: J>\ • 


























\ 






••^ 









